Talk:Monotheism

Monism is NOT Monotheism

Monotheism is dualism. It represents linear logic and is based on duality and a strict separation between man and God, and everything in general.

hippies hippies It is the same thing as polytheism or any other theism in that "God/Gods are up there, we are down here". It is based on "I am" "it is", "you are".

Further, monotheism, according to popular practice, is about a God with a personality and emotions.

Monism, or nondualism, cannot fall under monotheism as they proclaim that God is all that exists, as God = reality. Anything else that is percievable is an illussion (Maya) and merely reflective of a limited comprehension of reality (God). Ultimately, God is an "it" with no personality and is incomprehensible.

Big differences.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.1.164 (talk)

While this is a valid opinion, it uses words like Dualism in a very different context than is the typical language used to discuss monotheism. Put the way you phrased it, this is just another POV. However, you could phrase it somewhat as:

Eastern thought would, however, see Monotheism as presented in the west as a form of dualism, since it presents a God/not-God duality. Some eastern approaches to divine unity see God as the only reality, all else being an insubstantial reflection of that single, divine reality. Some interpretations of muslim concepts of Allah can sound close to this, though many Muslims would be scandalized by the comparison.

I'm not sure the above is the exact phrasing, and it bears more probing, but porobably on the monism page. But something like that makes the point without being chauvinistic one way or another. --Christian Edward Gruber 07:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no Monotheist Religions

Monotheism is currently defined as "belief in the [existence] of one deity". if so, there is hardly a single religion in the world that is monotheistic.

Each of the Abrahamic religions go to great linguistic length to define their deities so that they can say "There is only one'god'". But in the end, they all believe in the existence of at least one evil deity -- Satan...

In practice, many Muslims and Christians also worship plenty of minor gods . Although linguistically it's a taboo to actually call these acts "worships of minor gods". Instead we have to say that they're "praying to 'saints' and 'angels' for 'intercessions'". -- but that's like calling waterboarding and "interrogation technique" instead of "torture" -- it's only a difference in semantics.

If a being with all the attributes of St. Gabriel or St Michael (having great supernatural powers and being completely subservient to a higher being) appeared in Chinese or Greek or Roman mythology, English translator definitely label the being a "god".

Philosophy.dude (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize I'm violating WP:DNFTT, but Judaism doesn't believe in a Satan person. You have us confused with Christianity. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Error on page?

A sentence on the page reads "The Hyksos, continued an inheritance of Akhenaten's religious policies."

If I recall correctly, the Hyksos was of the XV'th dynasty, whereas Akhenaten was of the XVIII'th dynasty and thus antedates them. How could they continue his policies?

(I'm not sure wether this actually is an error or if I misunderstand the passage in question, so I'll refrain from editing the page myself.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.83.70 (talk)

You are quite right. See Akhenaten: Suggested dates for Akhenaten's reign (subject to the debates surrounding Egyptian chronology) are from 1353 BC-1336 BC or 1351 BC-1334 BC. And Hyksos: They rose to power during the Second Intermediate Period, and ruled Lower and Middle Egypt for over one hundred years, forming the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties of Egypt, (ca. 1674-1548 B.C.E. See Egyptian chronology). So Hyksos rule came to an end some 200 years before Akenaten's reign. I shall remove this part of the article. It is a good idea to sign your comments with four tildes (~) so other contributors can identify you. If you plan to contribute regularly it is a good idea to create an account. Alun 10:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done! Both the anonymous first, and then especially the explanation of Alun. Good work both of you.

Cialovesyou 11:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Abrahamic or Middle East Religions

This section is very confusing to me. When I read the article on Abrahamic religion it seems much clearer. Does anyone else agree this section should be written more clearly?

Wjbentley 01:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I must confess I have serious questions over whether Abraham was a Monotheist. Scripture doesnt seem to support this. It talks of the god of Abraham, but does not exclude the possibility of other gods who were not relevent to Abrahams descentdants. (Gen 15:17). Monotheism was more of a prgression with the Jewish faith, not a moment in time where Abraham dismissed other gods... Cialovesyou 00:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Genesis 15:17? "And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces" (NKJV). I'm sorry, but I don't see how this verse comments on God or gods, one way or the other. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 11:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I really don't know if Abraham was a Monotheist or not. However, clearly he is an important figure for people of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths. Therefore, it makes sense to include him in a discussion of Monotheism Wjbentley 22:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Judaism does not use what is written in the old testament (especially the King James English translation) as an exclusive source of history and philosophy. Explanations, footnotes and background information were all handed down in the oral scriptures. They were written down eventually and They include the Midrash and Babylonian Talmud. These give extensive history on Abhraham, including how he came to his monotheistic beliefs through observation of nature, long before G-d spoke to him. These are related mainly in Midrash Bereishit Rabbah, and Midrash Tanchuma. Christianity and Islam, however, may believe something different, but since the original character is in Jewish literature, it seems fair to take him in context of all the jewish literature that was written of him, which clearly states he was a monotheist and was in fact persecuted for being one. LemonLion 18:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Monotheism

"Monotheism is the belief in a single deity. In contrast, see Polytheism, which holds that there are many or a potentially infinite number of gods.

Various forms of belief relating to the transcendence and immanence of the divine exist among both monotheists and polytheists including:

Deism is a term which refers to belief in the absolute transcendence of the divine, a Deist comes to their belief through reason, and rejects any religious revelations such as the Bible, the Tanakh, or the Qur'an.

Theism, a term that actually indicates a transcendent and immanent divine being but which commonly refers to the belief in a 'personal' god or gods, that is, a god with a distinctive personality, rather than just a divine force. Theism differs from panentheism and is similar to deism in that that God is seen as the ruler of the universe

Panentheism is a closely related to theism in that the divine is beleived to be both transcendent and immanent but differs from theism and is similar to pantheism in that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe.

Pantheism holds that the divine is totally immanent and therefore is the Universe is God or visa versa. Depending on how this is understood, such a view may be tantamount to atheism or acosmism."

Suggest the above amendments to bring this page in line with "Theism" page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

The present version on the Monotheism page makes no reference to the divine attributes of Transcendence and immanence, which are the central features which distinguish the various positions. Also the order placing Theism at the top is unusual. Normally Deism is placed first as it emphasises transcendence, followed by the two beliefs which balance Transcendence & Immanence, then Pantheism which emphasises immanence. A more logical order.

Are these personal definitions, or do theology and philosophy texts use these terms? I have not seen these words used this way before. User:RK

Well, they are used by Encyclopedia Britannica, for one thing. -- User:SJK

I was wondering the same as RK. For example, how is it that theism entails a belief in a "persona" God. I find that to be false. Theism presumes a belief in a God(s). Aspects of theism believe in a personal God, but to define theism as belief in a personal God is misleading. User:JpB

---

Question: Christianity (and Islam?) believe in the existence a force that is opposed to God ("the Devil"). Doesn't this mean that these religions believe in "inclusive monotheism"?

I think the belief in two roughly equal but opposing forces is called dualism; this is clearly not what Jews, Christians and Muslims believe, as they generally agree that the Devil is a finite being created by God, not an equal or even near-equal "arch-enemy". But I think that that dualism at least comes close to describing Zoroastrianism. --User:Wesley

Many Jews, Unitarians and Muslims look at Christians as dualists. Christians believe in a supernatural being called God and in a similarly powerful supernatural being called Satan. True, one is the father of the other, and one is weaker, but nonetheless they both exist. They have nearly the same relationsip to each other as the two gods of Zoroastrianism (which everyone agrees is dualism). Despite the belief in both of these deities, and despite the belief that one of these deities is also a trinity with three distinct persons in it, its adherenets nonetheless claim to be monotheists. Many Jews, Unitarians, and Muslims find this claim of monotheism to be incomprehensible. In fact, that is one of the main reason that people left Christianity to create Unitarian-Universalism.

I don't think the article should include the Jewish/Unitarian/Muslim view of the Trinity. The first and third are explicity non-Christians and their views are inevitably going to be biased. As for Unitarians, well, sometimes it's hard to tell exactly what they believe in.

I have never met a Jew, Christian or Muslim with such a belief, nor have I ever read a book written that proposes such beliefs. The number of Jews, Chrisitians or Muslims who have such beliefs is likley very small. The only group I know of that had a widespread adoption of what the writer terms "inclusive monotheism" are Hindus. User:RK

A lot of (mostly Christian, though some may be Jewish) liberal theologians and philosphers of religion, especially those who study issues of religious pluralism and interreligious dialogue, support some kind of view similar to inclusive monotheism. It also occurs in some branches of Sufism, I believe. -- User:SJK

I doubt even half of one percent of Christian laity have such beliefs. I have never met a Chrisitian, Jew or Muslim in my life with such views. What you reder to is the province of academic ivory tower theoology, which is fine, but is not representative of real-world Christianity in any statistically meaningful sense. User:RK

---

Are you sure you really mean "God" and not "god"? In this article it doesn't refer to the god known as "God" by many people. It refers to any god.

---

I have a question about this sentence:

The Christian belief in the Trinity is traditionally considered a form of monotheism, although many Muslims and non-Trinitarian Christians (and a few Jews also) would question this classification.

I understand that Muslims and Jews may look at the doctrine of the trinity and see three separate gods, and therefor claim that Christianity is polytheistic. But wouldn't non-Trinitarian Christians deny the Trinity but continue to claim to be monotheistic and deny the Trinity, just like Jews and Muslims? Any specific examples of a Christian group that doesn't claim to be monotheistic? Maybe the Latter-Day Saints???? --User:Wesley

Both Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons explicitly deny trinitarianism. Jehovah's witnesses believe in one God, and believe that Jesus was a human being that was the son of God. Jesus, for them, was not part of God Himself. Mormons believe in millions of Gods, literally. (Their religion teaches that when a Mormon dies, he or she literally becomes a god of another planet in our galaxy.) However, Mormons only pray to one god, and thus they consider themselves monotheists. They draw a distinction between belief in millions of Gods, and their loyalty and service to one god. Many Jews and Muslims see Mormons as polytheists. The rule of thumb is this: Chrisitians always claim to be monotheists, no matter how many godlike heavenly supernatural deities they believe in. Jews and Muslims believe that any recognition of more than one godlike heavenly supernatural being is, by their definition, polytheism. User:RK

Your last sentence is fair enough. :-) Your description of Mormonism sounds a lot like henotheism: lots of gods, but one is better than all the others and therefore is the only one worshipped. How would Jews classify Hinduism, and I wonder how Hindus would classify themselves? In practice, you can observe that they seem to pray to lots of different gods, but I think they would say they're all part of one god, and further that all that exists is ultimately part of Brahman. From one angle it looks polytheistic, from another it might look vaguely monotheistic, and from another more pantheistic. Terminology is tricky. :-) --User:Wesley

Actual Mormom theology differs from how it is popularly represented (and derided) in that Mormons do _not_ "believe" in multiple G|gods. Any given individual is the creation of (and is under the stewardship of) one God called the Father. Mormons do not hold that other Gods populate our galaxy as drawn from the faithful ranks of those who have gone before. Without bogging the discussion down with the semantics of sequence and the nature of Time (cyclical, linear, &c: seen as x by man and y by God ....), consider the following statements regarding the nature and plurality of God(s):

* One title for God is "Holy Man" or Exalted Man.

* God developed divine attribute progressively in a repeateable process.

* God's activities of creation (the physical universe; the organization of spirits, or premortal man) occur in a space (time?) distinct from the activities of any other God. Gods other than the Father are "out of scope."

* Mormons are not moon-eyed imbeciles laboring away to be "Emerald Ring" members of some great MLM spiritual sham. However, moon-eyed imbeciles are invited to participate in a religion that aknowledges the divine potential of everyone.

The assertion is often found that because Mormons beleive God is a perfected Man and Men may become like God, Mormons believe in a pantheon of which God the Father is merely paramount. Not so. Mormons have no dealings, literature, stories, fables, or sermons relating to any God other than God the Father. No human being is said to be a child of any other God. Let us not read too much into a doctrine of human progression and posibility. --BrantEaton

Ok, I think I sort of understand the human progression and possibility part. Do I understand you to be saying, though, that God was not always fully God, i.e. omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. etc.? How can the creation of the universe take place in any space or time, when space and time are properties of the universe, or are themselves something that would need to be created or somehow come into existence? To put what is basically the same question another way, if God was once a man, how did he come into existence? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to clear up my understanding while I have the chance. Thanks, --User:Wesley

I think Hindus (or at least most Hindus) are simultaneously polytheists, inclusive monotheists, and pantheists (or more accurately monists). A big problem with Hinduism though is that, historically at least, there are lots of different groups with lots of different views, especially on the relationship between God and the universe... (lookup a list of the main schools of Hindu philosophy and you will see what I mean.) -- User:SJK

---

I believe that there is a difference between saying "there is one god" and "there is one God", because in theory a single lower-case "god" could just be a finite immortal being with great powers, whereas a monotheistic "God" is frequently lly seen as (depending on the variant of monotheism you subscribe to, of course) an infinite source or ground of the universe. To me there is a fundamental qualitative difference between a lot of conceptions of a monotheistic God and polytheistics gods, rather than just a quantitative difference in the number of gods you believe in. So, to avoid the controversy in the opening sentence, I rewrote it slightly, avoiding the use of either god or God (and instead using "deity"), and trying to emphasize the qualitative aspects of the way monotheism frequently differs from polytheism.

---

Suggest the following concluding passage to replace the final two paragraphs.

The three main Western religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are monotheistic. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is understood by Christians to represent a monotheistic view. Some others see the trinity as representing a polytheistic (three gods).User:Ed Poor

Most Jews and Muslims see the Trinity as a sincere attempt to be monotheistic. Thus, most Jewish and Muslim critics of the Trinity don't claim that it is the worship of three separate Gods; rather, they say that Chrisitians attempt to worship one god, but at the same time acknowledge three distinct persons within that god. Given Mulim and Jewish definitions of these terms, the resulting Christian worship has the appearance (to Muslims and Jews) of cognitive dissonance. The way that Jewish law deals with this is by saying that such worship is legally considered monotheism, as long as gentiles are doing it; however, this type of worship is forbidden by Jewish law to Jews. (The law itself is an example of cognative dissonance, but the rabbis were well aware of this. They are trying to legally find a way to hold onto their beliefs, without condemning Christianity. For this issue, they were not looking for philosophical clarity.) I am not sure how Muslims or other strict unitarian monotheists formally deal with this issue. User:RK

It's a very interesting question for me, because I was a Unitarian/Univeralist for a couple of years before becoming a Unificationist. Being obsessed with math puzzles, I set myself the task of counting (or taking a census of) the Christian Trinity. I found the answer of "one God in three persons" hard to quantify as an integer; this frustrated me, and I figured there had to be a mistake somewhere in the doctrine. However, as long as they are not worshiping three discrete beings (or even two), I can respect their desire to consider themselves monotheists. User:Ed Poor

Here's an analogy that may or may not help: picture three burning matches held with the burning match heads in close proximity, so that there is just one flame. You can't say that one match is burning and another is not, or that one is burning more than another. Yet the match sticks can still be identified as three distinct match sticks. This is very roughly comparable to the distinction drawn between one divine essence (homoousios) and one divine nature, existing in three Persons (hypostases) who are God. But be aware that any analogy breaks down if you push it too far. RK, I'm glad to learn how Jewish law deals with it, and appreciate the compassion and understanding shown. --User:Wesley

Here's another analogy that makes the "God in three persons" understandable to most Christians. God is manifested in creation, the teaching and saving Son, and the guiding Holy Spirit just as water is seen as ice and steam as well.

 --(Ernhart)

---

I agree with RK's earlier observation that few if any Jews today subscribe to "inclusive monotheism." But there is an argument that some Biblical Jews (really, Hebrews) did -- one passage in the Torah asks "Who among the gods is like you, Lord?" suggesting that there are other gods (i.e. that other nations have their own gods) but that those other gods are inferior to the God of Abraham. Some scholars have argued that within the book of Job is a creation myth that is strikingly different from the one that ended up in Genesis; in Genesis God is alone and creates the cosmos; in Job God battles with other gods. In other words, over time there was a shift from Hebrews who believed that each people had their own god, to the belief that there is one God who has different relationships with different nations. -- SR

Scholars agree that polytheism predated monotheism. Obviously, the Tanach (Hebrew Bible) is making oblique references to fact that some of the Israelite ancestors were indeed polytheistic (by today's definition of the word), and only later came to the modern concept of monotheism. Certain parts of the Midrash also imply this. Conservative and Reform rabbis have no problem with recognizing that the Bible has traces of the pre-historical belief of the earliest Jewish ancestors. But Judaism as faith from Biblical times onward was strictly monotheistic. As for Job, it is seems likely that just as Genesis is a midrash on one set of pagan creation stories, Job is also a midrash on a pagan creation story. Perhaps Genesis and Job both drew from the same original material, and emphasized different parts, or perhaps they were responses to different creation stories. In either case, that might be worth mentioning in an entry on detailed higher biblical criticism, and academic studies of how the Bible's text was created. But I just want to note that this wouldn't belong in an entry on Judaism and Jewish philosophy; it just isn't what Jews have ever believed from Biblical times to the present. User:RK

Forgive me for chipping in, and rather late in the day, but not all scholars agree that polytheism predated monotheism. Conservative evangelical Christian scholars, for instance, who take the story of Adam and Eve seriously, would point out that they were plainly monotheists, and that polytheism was a later perversion. They would also argue that phrases like "Who among the gods is like you, O LORD?" don't signify that (in this instance) Moses believed that the other "gods" were true gods like YHWH, but that of all the celestial powers, YHWH was the greatest. He *wasn't* advocating worshipping them, or even recognising them as Creators (which is a fundamental part of the understanding of God in the OT), but actually was saying that all other powers are subject to (and created by) YHWH.

Also, there is no reason to suppose that Genesis and Job are reflecting earlier pagan creation stories. Particularly Job: I never did understand where people got that idea from. The book is about a guy who suffers a load of problems and how he copes with that, not creation!

Just another view which may bear consideration. Wooster 11:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The following was removed - The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) traditionally subscribed to exclusive monotheism, though an increasing number of adherents of these religions today subscribe to the inclusive monotheist view.

The reason for removal was that this is just plain wrong. Jews, Christians and Muslims do not believe in the existence of multiple gods (i.e. "inclusive monotheism"). I would be shocked to see any studies which affirmed such a view. With the exception of a handful of university professors who have no following in any organized religion I have ever heard of, people in the Abrahamic faiths see this view as polytheism or paganism, and do not accept it. User:RK

Thanks for fixing that. --User:Wesley

...Conservative evangelical Christian scholars, for instance, who take the story of Adam and Eve seriously, would point out that they were plainly monotheists, and that polytheism was a later perversion...

In jewish literature, the midrashim relate extensively on how polytheism arose. Originally the sun, the moon and other heavenly objects were given honour, as people likened them to emmisaries of a king (the king being G-d). Eventually people forgot about the king and started worshiping the emisaries instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LemonLion (talk • contribs) 18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Deistic definition

I disagree with the definition of Deism that is shown here because one, it is a false dichotomy(implying that religous revelation is in conflict with reason) and two, Deism is usually defined by lack of interventionism regarding God's actions(a divine watchmaker, creating the universe and allowing it to function in a self-sustained manner).

Monotheism

I am frustrated by those who remove contributions of others without explaining their reasons. Could one of you enthusiastic monotheists explain to me the age old question of evil? Please do not censor out what you disagree with- instead try and answer the question so you can convince and convert the critics. User: Sirimewan 20:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me how an all powerful god who is benevolent can allow a Devil / Satan to operate? If god is all powerful he should have eliminated Satan before Satan could create any mischief. it is not logical to call your selves monotheists and at the same time believe in a Satan. But most monotheists when confronted with the epicurian question resort to a devil. I am waiting to be converted. Please explain to me where eveil comes from in a universe presided over by an all-powerful God. User:Sirimewan

Well this isn't a debate club. The material you inserted is your personal editorial, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. If you can cite critics who make your point, rather than your personal opinion, you can do so, but inserting personal views about the matter as you did is considered POV and original research. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 20:53, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Your paragraph is a POV bit of original research. You claim

In practice most monotheists tend to be dualists. When confronted with the Epicurean([Epicurus] http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/epicur.htm) question "where cometh the evil" most Christians Muslims and Jews etc. are quick to point to a Devil / Satan who, according to this arguement should have equal or more power than the god-in effect creating a socond "GOD" who is responsible for the evil in the world. Whle there is no dispute about the benefits of a belief in god to the individual, the many wars fought in the name of GOD, make one question the value of this concept to modern humanity.

Where did you get the figures to back up your claim that "most monotheists tend to be dualists"? Or that "most Christians Muslims and Jews etc. are quick to point to a Devil / Satan"? Do all these groups really have the same view of the Devil/Satan? Is there really "no dispute about the benefits of a belief in god to the individual"? Whose opinion is it that "the many wars fought in the name of GOD, make one question the value of this concept to modern humanity." Please again review the Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:NPOV policies. Also, please stop reverting my re-write of the poorly written Hinduism section. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now you are more to the point. I have very little knowledge of Hinduism and have never attempted to edit the article. Sirimewan

You haven't answered any of my questions, and I was talking about the re-write of the section on Hinduism in this article, not the Hinduism article. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stronger historical perspective needed

This article needs a stronger historical influence as oppossed to the enthusiatic work of theologians which, to me, seem to have clouded the issue. How is it that an article on monotheseism classifies various forms of monotheism in a way that seems to have completely failed to classify the three major monotheistic religions of the world today. i.e. Judaism, Islam and Christianity and failed to clearly identify the common Judaic root of these religions? --Wm 22:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To distinguish Jewish monotheism from Christian trinitarianism is too easy while ignoring the Shekinah and other "aspects" of the Jewish monotheistic God..

---

On the question of evil.

Without giving a long dissertation on evil here, from a Christian perspective it is not a "force" which opposes good. Even Satan is not more than a doer of evil. A sinner(one who knowingly and freely chooses evil. Evil is imperfection of good. Like darkness is the absense of light, not an opposing force. If I could point you guys to St.Augustine, Confessions; and Thomas Aquinas, for the traditional view on these matters. I accept I have not written an essay for you on evil, but the subject is vast. The references will give you clues where to start. In my view, no accepted scholar of Christian theology would see satan as "another deity". Cialovesyou 04:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

excess detail on Hindu monotheism

In Hinduism

I have moved this info as the information is too detailed for an intro to Hindu monotheism:

In contrast, see polytheism, which holds that there are many gods. Dualism teaches that there are two independent divine beings or eternal principles, the one good, and the other evil, as set forth especially in early Zoroastrianism (modern Zoroastrianism is strictly monotheistic), but more fully in its later offshoots in Gnostic systems, such as Manichaeism.

Most monotheists would say that, by definition, monotheism is incompatible with polytheism. However, devotees within polytheistic religious traditions often behave like monotheists. This is because a belief in multiple gods does not imply the worship of multiple gods. Historically, many religions believe in the existence of many gods, but worship only one, considered by the devotee to be the supreme God. This practice is termed henotheism. There are also monotheistic theologies in Hinduism which teach that the many forms of God, i.e., Vishnu, Shiva, or Devi merely represent aspects of a single or underlying divine power or Brahman (see articles on Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman). Some claim that Hinduism never taught polytheism [1], and such claim can be correct as one view of Hinduism, the Smarta view, is an inclusive monotheistic view of monotheism, as discussed later. This Smarta view dominates the view of Hinduism in the West and has confused all Hindus to be seemingly polytheistic. The Smarta division is the only branch of Hinduism that strictly follows this view. After all, Swami Vivekananda, a follower of Ramakrishna, along with many others, who brought Hindu beliefs to the West, were all Smarta in belief. Only a Smartist would have no problem worshiping Shiva or Vishnu together as he views the different aspects of God as leading to the same One God. God, thus, according to Smarta theology, can have a multitude of aspects and thus, according to this belief, they hold that Vishnu and Shiva are one and the same God. The Smarta theologians have cited many references to support this view. For example, they interpret verses in both the Shri Rudram, the most sacred mantra in Shaivism, and the Vishnu sahasranama, one of the most sacred prayers in Vaishnavism, to show this belief. By contrast, a Vaishnavite considers Vishnu as the only one true God, worthy of worship and other worship of other forms as subordinate or simply incorrect.

Monotheism can be divided into different types on the basis of its attitude towards polytheism: inclusive monotheism claims that all polytheistic deities are just different names for the single monotheistic God; Smartism, a denomination of Hinduism, follows this belief and holds that God is one but has different aspects and can be called by different names (this belief dominate the view of Hinduism in the West); exclusive monotheism, on the other hand, claims that these deities are false and distinct from the one God, either invented, demonic, or simply incorrect, as Vaishnavism, a denomination of Hinduism, regards the worship of anyone other than Vishnu. Exclusive monotheism is a well-known tenet in the beliefs of the Abrahamic religions. In Hinduism, views are broad and range from monism, dualism, pantheism, panentheism, alternatively called monistic theism by some scholars, and strict monotheism, but are not polytheistic as outsiders perceive the religion to be. Hinduism has often been confused to be polytheistic as many of Hinduism's adherents, i.e., Smartas, who follow Advaita philsophy, are monists, and view multiple manifestations of the one God or source of being. Hindu monists see one unity, with the personal Gods, different aspects of only One Supreme Being, like a single beam of light separated into colours by a prism, and are valid to worship. Some of the Hindu aspects of God include Devi, Vishnu, Ganesh, and Siva. It is the Smarta view that dominates the view of Hinduism in the West. After all, Swami Vivekananda, a follower of Ramakrishna, along with many others, who brought Hindu beliefs to the West, were all Smarta in belief. Other denominations of Hinduism, as described later, don't hold this belief strictly and more closely adhere to a Western perception of what a monotheistic faith is. Additionally, like Judeo-Christian traditions which believe in angels, Hindus also believe in less powerful entities, such as devas.

Contemporary Hinduism is now divided into four major divisions, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, and Smartism. Just as Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in one God but differ in their conceptions of him, Hindus all believe in one God but differ in their conceptions. The two primary form of differences are between the two monotheistic religions of Vaishnavism which conceives God as Vishnu and Shaivism, which conceives God as Shiva. Other aspects of God are in fact aspects of Vishnu or Shiva; see Smartism for more information. Only a Smartist would have no problem worshiping Shiva or Vishnu together as he views the different aspects of God as leading to the same One God. It is the Smarta view that dominates the view of Hinduism in the West. By contrast, a Vaishnavite considers Vishnu as the one true God, worthy of worship and other forms as subordinate. See for example, an illustration of the Vaishnavite view of Vishnu as the one true God, at this link. Accordingly, many Vaishnavites, for example, believe that only Vishnu can grant the ultimate aim for mankind, moksha. See for example, this link. Similarly, many Shaivites also hold similar beliefs, as illustrated at at this link and at this link.

However, even Vaisnavites, like other Hindus, have tolerance for other beliefs because Lord Krishna, avatar of Vishnu, said so in the Gita. Few views illustrate this view of tolerance: Krishna said: "Whatever deity or form a devotee worships, I make his faith steady. However, their wishes are only granted by Me." (Gita: 7:21-22) Another quote in the Gita states: "O Arjuna, even those devotees who worship other lesser deities (e.g., Devas, for example) with faith, they also worship Me, but in an improper way because I am the Supreme Being. I alone am the enjoyer of all sacrificial services (Seva, Yajna) and Lord of the universe." (Gita: 9:23) Even a Vedic verse illustrates this theme of tolerance. The Vedas are revered in Hinduism, regardless of denomination. For example, a well-known Rig Vedic hymn stemming from Hinduism states that "Truth is One, though the sages know it variously." This is in contrast with some beliefs of other religious traditions, where one must believe in God being one aspect and to totally reject or disdain other beliefs/

I have moved this info as the information is too detailed for an intro to Hindu monotheism

Raj2004 00:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

who was the first monotheist?

who is the first monothiest! i am doing a book report and i cant find the anwser to this question anywhere!

It is difficult to say exactly who was the very first monotheist, but the very first time that monotheism gained any kind of cultural stronghold anywhere was in Egypt. The Pharoah Akhnaten had been introduced to and schooled by his mother in the religion of the god "Aten," who was referred to as the "Sun of Righteousness," and was depicted as a sun-disc with many arms (rays) extending downward with hands of blessing. Some have maintained that this was merely sun worship but, in fact, Egypt already had a sun deity, Ra. The religion of Aten was actually monism, symbolized by the Sun. When Akhnaten became Pharoah, he actually removed the Egyptian capitol from Thebes and built a new city, replete with temples to his one God, and called the city Akhetaton. The priests of Ra, who hitherto had been the insiders with pharoahs and had power over all the other priests and, through the pharoah, over the people, were none too happy about this. The schemed during Akhnaten's entire short life (it is thought that he had a blood disease that cut his life short) to make sure that monotheist monism would not survive the pharoah, and that the polytheistic religion (led by the worship of Ra) would be restored on the pharoah's death. As soon as Akhnaten died, that's exactly what occurred. The capital was moved back to Thebes and the priests of Ra were back in power. Some historans believe that this religion of Aten actually is derived from the same precursor religion as the religion of El-Shaddai ("the God of the Mountain") practcied by the Canaanites and eventually by the Jews. Perhaps evidence of this is that Psalm 104 bears a striking resemblance to the Great Hymn to the Aten, which appeared centuries earlier:

How many are your deeds,

Though hidden from sight,

O Sole God beside whom there is none!

You made the earth as you wished, you alone,

All peoples, herds, and flocks;

All upon earth that walk on legs,

All on high that fly on wings,

The lands of Khor and Kush,

The land of Egypt itself!

Nrgdocadams 02:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Sikhism

This article contains no mention of Sikhism, a major world religion, which is, I believe, monotheistic. Is this not correct? --Oldak Quill 23:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User32

The above user has made a number of alterations which seem to be designed to suggest that Judaic and Islamic traditions are consistent with Vaishnavism. This user seems to have an agenda. I suggest his/her alterations be checked by regular editors. Paul B 13:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not confessional

Another user (Jeff3000) erased an external link I added arguing "linkspam". He also erased the whole new cathegory of external links:philosophical and critical views on monotheism. I shortened the later, erasing the obvious mention to monotheism in an article about the subject. But I kept the cathegory and the link. I suspect Jeff3000 has a religious agenda and doesn't like critical views on monotheism. It's too easy to argue "linkspam", but that won't do the trick. Wikipedia must remain free from disguised and undisguised religious censorship. (Miguel Montenegro) 23:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, you must assume good faith in Wikipedia. Firstly Wikipedia is not a list of links, I encourage to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and your link is not notable enough to be included. If you want find an academic external link about the criticism of monotheism and post it. Secondly anything that is added in Wikipedia must be verifiable; it might be true, but unless it's verifiable it can't be included in Wikipedia. So how is something verifiable, well it must have reliable sources. Blogs, personal websites, and forums are not considered reliable sources, and cannot be used to used to back up something in an article. -- Jeff3000 05:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I won't put the link there again, Jeff: even my subborness has limits. But I think some of your arguments deserve a reply. First, I don't make assumptions about people I don't know, even if I try to treat them corteously. Second, your apreciation about the "notableness" of the link is entirely subjective: you still don't seem willing to say what you think about the content. Third, qualifying something as "academical" or "not-academical" says nothing about it's value. If you can only make formal objections (self-link, not academical...) or entirely subective ones (not "notable enough"), leaving the meaning untouched, that means you haven't got the competences needed to have a say in the matter, in which cas you should not intervene at all. In fact, it was the lack of content in your aguments that led me to think you do have a religious agenda and can't bear a critical view on monotheism. If that is true, you are in the wrong place. If my supposition is wrong, what is there keeping you from sharing whith us your thoughts about the contents of the link? Fourth, the link wasn't used to back anything in the article. On the contrary, by being added under the heading "Critical and philosophical views", it's critical bend was openly admitted. Finally, the statements in the text to which the link leads refer to publicly available documents (Sultan's interview, The Old and the New Testament, The Koran). Those statements are therefore verifiable. Of course, you may not agree with them and think they are good to be forgoten, but that's an entirely different thing, isn't it Jeff?

Miguel Montenegro 09:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Academic means something published in a journal. A quick definition of a reliable source is something that has been published, that means someone else (a publisher/editor) has agreed it is noteworthy. A personal website does not pass that criteria, and is generally not notable. Wikipedia is not about if something is valuable or not, or if it is truth or not, it is about verifiability from reliable sources. I ask you once again to read those sections of Wikipedia policy that I linked to. It is not my job to prove that the contents of the link is valuable or true, but as part of the wikipedia community it is to follow wikipedia policy, and a general website is usually never notable enough to keep as an external link (except when the article is about that person). Finally in regards to the invertview, they might be true or not, but what you included was not referenced, and thus can be removed. -- Jeff3000 13:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

what does the article mean by the sentence:

"In traditional Jewish, Christian, and Islamic thought, only those religions derived from biblical sources were considered monotheistic, with monotheism being regarded as their most basic belief. They have traditionally interpreted scriptures as exclusive monotheism."

I would say that it is not true, but I don't know what it is trying to say. Jon513 17:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I will delete or move to 'Source of Abrahamic religions' shortly. Also will change intro - God is not Omnipresent or immanent in all monotheistic traditions - especially in Abahamic religions.--Pranathi 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Christian Monotheism

I find the section on Christian monotheism to be quite problamatic. "Most Christians see the trinity as aspects of God"(paraphrase). This is simply false. It is identifiable as the heresy of Modism, or Modalism; and is clearly rejected by Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and the major protestant churches. In short, it is rejected by about 5/6 of Christianity. There are other problems with this section, but I will come back to them. Hopefully someone else will make a comment.

Cialovesyou 11:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthur to my above post, I am thinking of making a total re-write of the "Christian Monotheism". If anyone has a vociferous complaint, post it here. Likewise, if anyone would rather do it, mention it, as I dont want to be doing something someone else is already working on.

Why? Because the section simply doesnt represent majority Christian thought/theology on the subject. A debate about different views on the Trinity is best left to that entry on Wiki.

Anyway, if you read the section I am talking about, leave a comment and we can discuss it.

Cialovesyou 12:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization of God

Jeff3000. I see the point you are trying to make with the spelling. However, this is spelling vandalism. You are using improper case to make a point that in these instances the word "God" does not denote a proper noun (or person). However, you are incorrect that the word God is only capitalized when it is a proper noun. God can be used as a principle such as with Brahman (not a proper noun) and still is capitalized. Only "a god" or "gods" (as in polytheism) is in lower case.

If you want to make the point that in these instances the word "God" does not denote a proper noun then simply state this in the article and it will be clear to others. The way you are doing it (with lower case) makes readers think you are making reference to polytheism, which I'm pretty sure is not your point. chris 14:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Defn and contrast with polytheism

The intro says - Monotheism, in contrast with polytheism, is the belief in one god, simply put it is the belief in a single deity. Is this the standard definition or is this made by in Wiki? There is a cited defn in the page as The belief in the existence of one God, or in the oneness of God. I think the second one is more appropriate and should be used for the intro. For one, god is not capitalized in current intro and should be he/she/it if he is 'One'. Also deity/divinity is ambiguous since there are other secondary entities considered divine such as angels etc. In addition, I think (atleast per Wiki definitions)monotheism and polytheism are not the opposite of each other (as mentioned in intro). Polytheism is defined as worship of multiple divinities. In for example some strains of Hinduism, there is belief in One God but also multiple divinities (secondary to God) are worshipped. So would that be considered both monotheistic as well as polytheistic (and so MT cannot be contrasted with PT). I will change the intro shortly to reflect the cited defn and also modify the 'comparison to polytheism' section unless anyone has objections or can clarify the correct defn/stance.--Pranathi 16:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Evolution in Monotheism?

Under Zoroastrianism, the article states, "Zoroastrianism is considered by some to perhaps be one of the earliest monotheistic belief to have evolved among humanity." I simply do not believe this, and it is extremely biased and ignorant to say monotheism evolved. I do not believe in Zoroastrianism either, but this is just biased. I understand, it says, "...considered by some...," but the end of that sentence states declaratively that monotheism evolved: "...to have evolved among humanity." I understand that I am biased as well, but both sides of this issue must be stated, or else other words chosed to not sound biased towards monotheistic followers.--toaster 02:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The word "evolved" refers to social evolution and development - not biological variety. The word is used in its basic meaning which predates the Theory of Evolution. -Ste|vertigo 01:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That is what I meant. I was against that. Under my religion I believe that God has always been there. I think at least that sentence should be rewritten, I will not do it b/c i do not edit too often...--toaster 21:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

While God may always have been there, the question is whether an awareness of a single creator has always been there, or have humans come to that from a previous belief in nature spirits, or whatever. That's where the word 'evolved' might come in. However, I'm sure the sentence could be rephrased as "Zoroastrianism is considered by some to be one of the earliest historically documented monotheistic beliefs." No loaded "evolved" word, though I have no problem with the original wording myself. Although on that point, Ahkenaten might be earlier. --Christian Edward Gruber 01:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Development of Monotheism in the Hebrew Bible

I'm cutting the following text from the paragraph on Zoroastrianism:

Several professors, of archaeology and of biblical criticism, connect Zoroastrianism and the religion of the early Israelites. For example, they have made the controversial claim that many stories in the Old Testament were actually initially developed by scribes employed by King Josiah (7th century BC) to rationalize monotheistic belief in YHVH. This theory observes that the neighbouring countries, such as Egypt, Persia etc, although keeping written records, have no writings about the stories of the Bible or its main characters before 650 BC. Such claims are detailed in Who Were the Early Israelites? by William G. Dever. Another such book is The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil A. Silberman, Simon and Schuster.

Finkelstein & Silberman make no mention of Zoroastrianism; and I'm very doubtful that Dever does either.

Theirs is quite a mainstream thesis that the attitude of the Hebrews may have been a lot more ambivolent towards Monotheism before a thoroughgoing attempt to impose it from the centre in the time of King Josiah (reigned 639-609 BCE), as part of which the books of the so-called Deuteronomic history (ie from Joshua through to II Kings) were largely cast into the form we now have them.

The idea that there might have been some kind of cross-over with Zoroastrianism is (as far as I know) based on a different, more extreme thesis, that the hardline Deuteronomical emphasis on monotheism was written in even later, during or immediately after the Exile, associated perhaps with the person of Ezra acting under Persian direction. But this is seen as a much more minority extreme view.

It seems to me the appropriate place to discuss this would be the subsection "History in Abrahamic religions", and the subsequent two subsections.

At the moment, I find these sections read a bit strangely. They could use some revision, I think, to set out an overview first, and some of the landscape in general terms, including perhaps mentioning some of the difficulties in dating when the various books of the Bible might have been formed, before diving straight into the data, and some of the evidence that some of the earlier less monotheistic traditions may still have managed to seep through to the texts we now have, in some of the wording and language.

Also, perhaps some of the subsequent material on Judaism could usefully be moved over to the Judiasm stub paragraph higher up. -- Jheald 01:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

                 why is this web so confusing? um u need 2 fix more better um ya da

salvation

Do not all three monotheistic religions offer salvation (ransom, redemption)? Should this not be included, because in my opinion it is a major feature that made it attractive to non-converted, especially ancient polytheism and modern age natives during colonisation. --Flammingo^Parliament 16:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Akhenaten not mention?

My grammer is horrible. Could someone (hopefully somone more knowledgible than myself) so kindly include something on Akhenaten's monotheism in Egypt. I think its worth including.

(Bill) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.128.230 (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC). (January 18, 2007)

Druze Monotheism moved from article space

This was posted in the article space. It's entirely inappropriate, but might be useful if someone wanted to draw out anything relevant about Druze monotheism.

The Mo'wa'he'doon (Monotheists) DRUZE are Monotheists that beleive in Taw'heed (Monotheism) . Their concept of Taw'heed is as follows: The Taw’heed faith came to confirm the Absolute Oneness of God. • God is the only Creator • He is Omnipresent, not limited to the bounds of time or space, eternal without a beginning, abiding without an end. • He is the Creator who produced all things from His light, to whom all shall return. • He is the existence and there is no existences accept in Him. • He is beyond description, definition, and multiplicity. He rises above disobedience and opposition. • He created all things and to His might and Sovereign all shall return. • His presence is more truthful than the existence of all that exists. The truth lies in the comprehensive existence of everything. That is why admission of Taw’heed, Unitarianism is purity and existence. The Holy Koran defines Taw’heed: “God is one. God is eternal. God begot none, nor was He begotten. Non is equal to God.” Unitarianism “Taw’heed”, the belief in one God, in the Druze faith is a continuation of the old philosophy that started with creation and progressed during past eras, in Athens, Egypt, Syria, Persia, India and China.

Sincerely, Moustafa F. Moukarim Author of: 1. Faith of the Druze Simplified for the Youth 2. AL-KIAMA (The Life After) * 3. HAMZA (Strive for a Wiser Life) *

• Both books can be ordered from: www.authorhouse.com
• Or by Telephone at:

Visit my website: www.mmouka.com My e-mail address: mmouka@mmouka.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.230.9 (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2007

— Gareth Hughes 15:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus the Great of Persia

Something should be said about the spread of monotheism to Babylon by the Persian ruler Cyrus the Great when they defeated the Babylonians.

-Bob March 18, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.128.230 (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Approach to this subject and Hindu views on Monotheism

I think although people are making great efforts to write about this subject. Some grave mistakes are being made. In introducing a topic to the general public I think it would be wise to first write abut what is the most generally understood meaning or what is held as accurate by a great majority and not any controversial or contested opinions. I hope all will agree this is in line with and in spirit of the wiki community.

With this is mind i removed comments about the Hindu concept of monotheism which had references Richard Dawkins views in the first paragraph itself. Clearly his views don't represent what most the believers of any religion in this world believe. I would like to learn more about his views and perhaps read his books but I don't think one should quote Richard Dawkins to explain the Hindu view of monotheism because clearly most Hindus would disagree with what quote. The removed line is shown here.

    Richard Dawkins states that Hinduism is "monotheism in disguise" in his book, The God Delusion. 

Rajcurious

By the way Hinduism is not polytheism as most non-hindus seem to think! I just wanted to add that the Article Hindu Views on Monotheism is written in a better way and reflects the ideas and beliefs of Hindus more fairly than this article. Rajcurious

The development of Monotheism

It seems to me that, in an attempt to remain objective, this page has been written from a purely secular perspective. I added a short quip regarding the idea of original monotheism, and it was removed. I did not offer much in the way of argumentation, as my purpose was not to proselytize. I simply thought that, to round out a discussion of monotheism, one should at least entertain the notion that it predates man. Bentonbjones3 23:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(I added an entry for the development of monotheism mainly focusing on Judaism. Perhaps someone wants to rename this "...within Judaism"? The last 2 lines may be in question(regarding Christianity and Islam), as there is more that could be said on this, including a reference to Arianism, and the Council of Nicea.

Cialovesyou 06:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I fear this section is quite poorly written. For example, the sentence "In Genesis chapter one, God is put in the singular context" makes no sense as it stands; does it mean that the Hebrew word for God in Genesis 1 is singular in form (El as opposed to the plural form Elohim)? If so, why not say so?

PhilG 14:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Was the wondering about the line "Western culture has a noted tendency for classification and terminology". Aren't all languages systems for so doing, is the West exceptional here?MacLeanA 19:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)MacLeanA

I agree. For example, while Hinduism does not classify along monotheism/polytheism lines it does have other philosophical classifications such as advaita, vishistadvaita, dvaita etc.. The sentence seems to be personal opinion.--Pranathi 00:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph on 'Original Monotheism' again. The previous section has a straightforward, matter-of-fact description of Urmonotheismus. A concept that never gained wide academic appeal. — Gareth Hughes 10:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Are the Devil and Angels "Demigods"?

A lot of Christians seem to believe in these supernatural beings in addition to the main God. Also the Catholics have numerous saints corresponding to the minor Pagan gods. For example the winter solstice celebration.

I know it is a touchy subject, but most versions of "Christianity" are just Pagan beliefs kludged onto Judaism.

Unfortunately, WP tends to feature the official POV of organized religious groups. 24.64.165.176 08:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?

Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. a good alternative is Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Search for "Eastern religions". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why search on "eastern religions"? Only the phrase dharmic religions is a source of dispute. Andries 21:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Machniations of Athanasius?

Does anyone have a source for this?

However, due to the machinations of Athanasius and others in his party, many of the Eastern bishops who were pro-Arian, were prevented from reaching the Council until after the vote had been taken.

I removed it pending discussion. --Mathaytace (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review javascript

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Zoroastrians do NOT worship fire

And the Catholic Encyclopedia is an unacceptable, because almost assuredly biased, source for information on any religion other than Catholocism. You can't trust a group who wants to exterminate all other groups to give an accurate and objective review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.134.65 (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure that the Catholic church would not endorse the idea of "exterminating all other groups." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.144.161 (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation of 'god'

One of a number of stylistic corrections I made to the article was decapitalisation of common noun instances of 'god', as in "or in the oneness of a God". This (and, inexplicably, all other changes) was reverted by editor Ben Asher, under the rationale that "Monotheists capitalize the single "God" to distinguish from other (false) "gods"". This convention may exist, but the MoS explicitly prescribes capitalisation for proper nouns only:

Honorifics for deities, including proper nouns and titles, start with a capital letter (God, Allah, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Great Spirit); the is not capitalized. The same is true when referring to major religious figures and figures from mythology by titles or terms of respect (the Prophet, the Messiah, the Virgin, a Muse). Common nouns denoting deities or religious figures are not capitalized

It does not matter what deities the word is intended to reference. Ilkali (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is this MoS?EGMichaels (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Found it:

Honorifics for deities, including proper nouns and titles, start with a capital letter (God, Allah, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Great Spirit); the is not capitalized. The same is true when referring to major religious figures and figures from mythology by titles or terms of respect (the Prophet, the Messiah, the Virgin, a Muse). Common nouns denoting deities or religious figures are not capitalized; thus the Romans worshipped many gods, many Anglo-Saxons worshipped the god Wotan, Jesus and Muhammad are both considered prophets in Islam, biblical scholars dispute whether Mary was a virgin for her entire life, and her husband was her muse.

Don't monotheists normally use "God" as a description (god), an honorific (God), and a substitute for a proper name (God) at the same time? It's strange to mix god and God in an article about monotheism. Just my two cents.EGMichaels (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

God is a proper noun referencing a specific deity, like 'Dad' references the speaker's father.

god is a common noun denoting all deities, like 'dad' denotes all fathers.

If we say "Dad is a dad", the first d-word is a proper noun and the second is a common noun. Likewise, we can say "God is a god". The second g-word here should not be capitalised, because it's a common noun. Ilkali (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

God is not a specific deity. God is specifically the Deity. When I get time I'll work on the capitalization in the article.EGMichaels (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"God is not a specific deity". Let me clarify. The proper noun God references the thing described by the article God. The common noun god indexes the concept described by the article deity. Ilkali (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I did a partial edit. There's a slight inconsistency so far with Aten that I'll have to fix. I stopped part way through Zoroastrianism. When there are multiple deities, "god" is a common noun. When there is only one Deity, God substitutes as a proper name. If you had a dog named Sam, you wouldn't call him "my sam" but "my Sam" even when not speaking vocatively. Since Western monotheists generally avoid using a proper name for God, "God" is used as if it were itself the proper name, rather than merely a title. I'll try to finish in the next few days, and thanks for bringing it to my attention.EGMichaels (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"When there are multiple deities, "god" is a common noun. When there is only one Deity, God substitutes as a proper name". It's possible for proper nouns to behave like common nouns in exceptional circumstances, but I do not agree this is happening here. Take the text I gave as example above: "or in the oneness of a God". According to your anaysis, is the g-word in question a common or proper noun? If the latter, how is the text different to "or in the oneness of God"? Ilkali (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a proper noun behaving like a common noun. I'm talking about a proper name. "God" is a proper name to Christians and Jews who do not speak any other kind of name. "[T]he oneness of a God" is nonsensical, and because you pointed it out, I corrected it in the text. "A God" conotes two contradictory things at the same time: polytheism (a) and monotheism (God). The syntax is unworkable, and the editor in question would have to decide on whether the article is about "polytheism" (a god) or "monotheism" (God). I opted for the subject of the article.EGMichaels (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

EGMichaels, please stop edit-warring. We need to leave the article in its earlier state until this has been discussed - note that this is not my preferred state either.

Let's examine some of the changes you make:

• "In theology, monotheism (from Greek μόνος "one" and θεός "god")". You capitalised 'god', thereby changing the translation. Are you fluent in Greek? If not, it seems massively presumptuous to make this change.
• "belief in the existence of one deity". You capitalised 'deity'. Why? This is clearly not a proper noun.
• "may still include concepts of a plurality of the Divine". Ditto above. Common mass noun.
• "of a specific god" -> "of a single God". Is this not the same as the "Oneness of a god" example, in that it contains an indefinite article?
• "Deism is a form of monotheism in which it is believed that one god exists. However, a deist rejects the idea that this god intervenes in the world" -> "Deism is a form of monotheism in which it is believed that one God exists. However, a deist rejects the idea that God intervenes in the world". What was wrong with the original? And semantically, the quantifier one does the same job as a. Why is "a God" bad but "one God" okay?

Ilkali (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Subjective vs Objective comments

I would stay away from comments like this:

the distinction between worshipping the divine nature of Jesus but not the human nature of Jesus can be difficult for non-Christians (and even Christian laity) to follow.

Personally, I find all the -isms confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.198.121 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

whether to include "oneness of a God" in the definition

In this edit, EGMichaels changed the opening definition "from the belief in the existence of one deity, or in the oneness of a God" to "the belief that only one Deity exists", with the edit summary "Corrected the meaning of the term". But the original wording was a direct quote from the given source, Encyclopedia Brittanica. I don't know whether Brittanica is correct, but we should either use their definition or use a different source. --Allen (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a scholarly article

Any enclypopedia article is supposed to reflect the latest scholarly research. Here the author accepts traditionalist dating of biblical authorship, which is now comprehensively rejected by both Jewish and Christian scholars. The author betrays his literalist position with the passage 'if Deuteronomy is taken as part of the original text as it generally is by those who use it as scripture'. This is a statement of faith, not fact. Scholars date Deuteronomy centuries later. Similaraly he quotes from the prophet Isaiah to demonstrate that the Bible predates Zoroastrian monotheism. In fact Chapter 44, from which he quotes, has long been ascribed to a second author (Deutero Isaiah), who was writing after the Babylonian empire had been destroyed by Cyrus in 537 BCE. By this time Hebrew religion had been heavily influenced by Mesopotamian and Persian religion. Deutero Isaiah's hymn of joy 'Every valley shall be exalted and every mountain and hill made low' could just as well have been written by Zoroaster himself. Doubters are refered to Norman Cohn's authoratitive Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come. Yale 2001.

This article contrasts sharply with other scholarly Wiki offerings on religious developments in this early period.